An essay in syllabus form, this critical disinformation studies syllabus expands our definition of what counts as disinformation
To demonstrate how these principles play out in practice, we created a Critical Disinformation Studies syllabus as a provocation to disinformation researchers to rethink many of the assumptions of our nascent field. While the syllabus is fully-functional as is—it could be implemented in its current form for a graduate level seminar—it is also an essay in syllabus form. We draw from a very broad range of scholarship, much which falls outside of conventional studies of “disinformation,” to expand our understanding of what “counts” as disinformation.
We provide five case studies—crime and anti-Blackness; Japanese incarceration; Black liberation; the AIDS crisis; and the trope of the Welfare Queen—to demonstrate the historical complicity of media, the state, and the political establishment in strategically spreading inaccurate information to maintain structural inequality. We argue that disinformation is a key way in which whiteness in the United States has been reinforced and reproduced, in addition to heteronormativity and class privilege.
Each section includes recommended readings. Some sections include audiovisual material and primary sources. The intended audience for this syllabus is graduate students, faculty, and researchers interested in “disinformation” writ large. It can be adapted for undergraduate audiences as well.
While this is an interdisciplinary syllabus, its contributors are primarily from Communication and Media Studies. This syllabus is open-source and may be used by anyone for any scholarly or educational purpose without attribution. Please drop us a line if you have suggestions for readings or topics.
Three caveats:
- This syllabus focuses primarily on the United States, reflecting the state of the field. We recognize the limitations of this and encourage scholars to think through how false information is conceptualized across different political, social, and cultural contexts. Further, disinformation as it spreads in the U.S. is also connected to broader geopolitical and transnational dynamics.
- The cases, examples, and sources included in this syllabus represent a range of approaches and perspectives. We recognize that citations, information, and knowledge production are political acts and inclusion does not necessarily entail endorsement of ideas and sources. Rather, we make this offering as a means to encourage ongoing critical and multi-faceted reflections of power and history in the study of disinformation.
- Foregrounding history and context does not imply that contemporary social platforms are blameless. We support scholarly and activist efforts to hold large technology companies accountable. However, we wish to recognize that social platforms are but one part of a larger ecosystem, and to see state, politician, and legacy media companies equally taken to task for their roles in spreading disinformation.
Ideas matter - so do the empirical means by which we study them.
This book develops an analytical framework for understanding the role of ideas in political life and communication. Power in Ideas argues that the empirical study of ideas should combine interpretive approaches to derive meaning and understand influence with quantitative analysis to help determine the reach, spread, and impact of ideas. The authors illustrates this approach through three case studies: the idea of reparations in Ta-Nehisi Coates's “The Case for Reparations,” the idea of free expression in Mark Zuckerberg's Facebook policy speech at Georgetown University, and the idea of universal basic income in Andrew Yang's “Freedom Dividend.” Power in Ideas traces the landscapes and spheres within which these ideas emerged and were articulated, the ways they were encoded in discourse, the fields they traveled across, and how they became powerful
Decentering communication studies' historic reliance on white perspectives and epistemologies
This review articles examines three books that place race and ethnicity at the center of their disparate approaches. What is theoretically important about all three books is that they start from an emphasis on the analytical and empirical importance of those who stand outside of powerful institutions and dominant cultures, whether they are activists, movements, counterpublics, everyday smartphone and social media users, or generations of people with a shared history. Each of the books has a different analytical lens onto what brings and keeps these people together, and the relations they hold to others and across history.